PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?

PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?

For a few months now, I have been using a vintage Pioneer SX-780
receiver in pristine condition. I have really enjoyed using this
receiver and really like its excellent, warm sound for both analog and
digital sources.

But now fate has smiled upon me and I have just discovered a vintage
Pioneer SX-750, also in pristine condition.

I will keep one of these receivers and sell the other one.

But my question is: Which one should I keep?

I thought I would ask some of you kind people, since it is very
possible that you know some details about these receivers, technical
or otherwise, that I might not know.

I understand that the power amplifier section is slightly different
between the two models. What is the difference? Does the difference
matter, either in sound quality or longevity?

I must admit that I haven't listened extensively to either one of
these receivers, and I certainly haven't made a "head-to-head"
comparison, but I will say that they both look and sound fantastic.

Which one would you keep and why?

Many thanks in advance......................

Re: PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?


"EADGBE" <hwbosshoss@comcast . net > wrote in message
news:d47f7092-6b7d-4e52-b4a0-5a358e5b9c58@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups . com ...
> For a few months now, I have been using a vintage Pioneer SX-780
> receiver in pristine condition. I have really enjoyed using this
> receiver and really like its excellent, warm sound for both analog and
> digital sources.
>
> But now fate has smiled upon me and I have just discovered a vintage
> Pioneer SX-750, also in pristine condition.
>
> I will keep one of these receivers and sell the other one.
>
> But my question is: Which one should I keep?

**Neither. A a lot of people are paying ridiculous prices for these old
clunkers. Sell them both and buy a modern amp.

>
> I thought I would ask some of you kind people, since it is very
> possible that you know some details about these receivers, technical
> or otherwise, that I might not know.
>
> I understand that the power amplifier section is slightly different
> between the two models. What is the difference? Does the difference
> matter, either in sound quality or longevity?

**Nothing of consequence. Both will require replacement of most (all)
electrolytica caps. Any OP amps used will be extremely primitive and
topology will not be anything great.

>
> I must admit that I haven't listened extensively to either one of
> these receivers, and I certainly haven't made a "head-to-head"
> comparison, but I will say that they both look and sound fantastic.
>
> Which one would you keep and why?

**Neither.

Trevor Wilson

Re: PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?


"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio . com .au> wrote in message
news:687dftF2ri8k5U1@mid.individual . net ...
>
> "EADGBE" <hwbosshoss@comcast . net > wrote in message
> news:d47f7092-6b7d-4e52-b4a0-5a358e5b9c58@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups . com ...
>> For a few months now, I have been using a vintage Pioneer SX-780
>> receiver in pristine condition. I have really enjoyed using this
>> receiver and really like its excellent, warm sound for both analog and
>> digital sources.
>>
>> But now fate has smiled upon me and I have just discovered a vintage
>> Pioneer SX-750, also in pristine condition.
>>
>> I will keep one of these receivers and sell the other one.
>>
>> But my question is: Which one should I keep?
>
> **Neither. A a lot of people are paying ridiculous prices for these old
> clunkers. Sell them both and buy a modern amp.
>
>>
>> I thought I would ask some of you kind people, since it is very
>> possible that you know some details about these receivers, technical
>> or otherwise, that I might not know.
>>
>> I understand that the power amplifier section is slightly different
>> between the two models. What is the difference? Does the difference
>> matter, either in sound quality or longevity?
>
> **Nothing of consequence. Both will require replacement of most (all)
> electrolytica caps. Any OP amps used will be extremely primitive and
> topology will not be anything great.
>
>>
>> I must admit that I haven't listened extensively to either one of
>> these receivers, and I certainly haven't made a "head-to-head"
>> comparison, but I will say that they both look and sound fantastic.
>>
>> Which one would you keep and why?
>
> **Neither.
>
> Trevor Wilson
>

We've had this discussion before - but there is no reason that most vintage
solid-state equipment cannot run and sound fine almost indefinitely,
provided mechanical controls and switches etc are clean and functioning
properly, and there could be maintenance issues such as needing to resolder
regulators (these Pioneer models were famous for this). The tuner sections
were better than most modern models, and the audio performance is generally
fine. They wouldn't beat a top-of-the-line modern separate power amp, but
that's an apples vs. oranges comparison.

In the specific case of the SX-750 or SX-780, there is little to choose
between them. The 780 was simply the next model year that's all. They both
use STK0050 output devices, and personally I favor discrete output
transistors. The 0050's were so common however, one should still be able to
get one should you need it.


Mark Z.

Re: PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?

On May 5, 8:00 am, "Mark D. Zacharias" <mzachar...@nonsense . net >
wrote:
> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@ SPAMBLOCK rageaudio . com .au> wrote in message
>
> news:687dftF2ri8k5U1@mid.individual . net ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "EADGBE" <hwbossh...@comcast . net > wrote in message
> >news:d47f7092-6b7d-4e52-b4a0-5a358e5b9c58@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups . com ...=

> >> For a few months now, I have been using a vintage Pioneer SX-780
> >> receiver in pristine condition.  I have really enjoyed using this
> >> receiver and really like its excellent, warm sound for both analog and
> >> digital sources.
>
> >> But now fate has smiled upon me and I have just discovered a vintage
> >> Pioneer SX-750, also in pristine condition.
>
> >> I will keep one of these receivers and sell the other one.
>
> >> But my question is: Which one should I keep?
>
> > **Neither. A a lot of people are paying ridiculous prices for these old
> > clunkers. Sell them both and buy a modern amp.
>
> >> I thought I would ask some of you kind people, since it is very
> >> possible that you know some details about these receivers, technical
> >> or otherwise, that I might not know.
>
> >> I understand that the power amplifier section is slightly different
> >> between the two models.  What is the difference?  Does the differen=
ce
> >> matter, either in sound quality or longevity?
>
> > **Nothing of consequence. Both will require replacement of most (all)
> > electrolytica caps. Any OP amps used will be extremely primitive and
> > topology will not be anything great.
>
> >> I must admit that I haven't listened extensively to either one of
> >> these receivers, and I certainly haven't made a "head-to-head"
> >> comparison, but I will say that they both look and sound fantastic.
>
> >> Which one would you keep and why?
>
> > **Neither.
>
> > Trevor Wilson
>
> We've had this discussion before - but there is no reason that most vintag=
e
> solid-state equipment cannot run and sound fine almost indefinitely,
> provided mechanical controls and switches etc are clean and functioning
> properly, and there could be maintenance issues such as needing to resolde=
r
> regulators (these Pioneer models were famous for this). The tuner sections=

> were better than most modern models, and the audio performance is generall=
y
> fine. They wouldn't beat a top-of-the-line modern separate power amp, but
> that's an apples vs. oranges comparison.
>
> In the specific case of the SX-750 or SX-780, there is little to choose
> between them. The 780 was simply the next model year that's all. They both=

> use STK0050 output devices, and personally I favor discrete output
> transistors. The 0050's were so common however, one should still be able t=
o
> get one should you need it.
>
> Mark Z.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, the stk's are still around in all sorts of wattages. I still
have a technics amp with a couple of them and it sounds decent. I had
to replace one of it's regulator transistors last year. Nothing
memorable about any of the vintage amps with the stk's though. Other
than optional protection circuitry the output stages are pretty much
identical.

Now a 1250 or 1280 and you're talking serious vintage.

Re: PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?


"Mark D. Zacharias" <mzacharias@nonsense . net > wrote in message
news:cFCTj.1462$To6.54@newssvr21.news.prodigy . net ...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio . com .au> wrote in message
> news:687dftF2ri8k5U1@mid.individual . net ...
>>
>> "EADGBE" <hwbosshoss@comcast . net > wrote in message
>> news:d47f7092-6b7d-4e52-b4a0-5a358e5b9c58@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups . com ...
>>> For a few months now, I have been using a vintage Pioneer SX-780
>>> receiver in pristine condition. I have really enjoyed using this
>>> receiver and really like its excellent, warm sound for both analog and
>>> digital sources.
>>>
>>> But now fate has smiled upon me and I have just discovered a vintage
>>> Pioneer SX-750, also in pristine condition.
>>>
>>> I will keep one of these receivers and sell the other one.
>>>
>>> But my question is: Which one should I keep?
>>
>> **Neither. A a lot of people are paying ridiculous prices for these old
>> clunkers. Sell them both and buy a modern amp.
>>
>>>
>>> I thought I would ask some of you kind people, since it is very
>>> possible that you know some details about these receivers, technical
>>> or otherwise, that I might not know.
>>>
>>> I understand that the power amplifier section is slightly different
>>> between the two models. What is the difference? Does the difference
>>> matter, either in sound quality or longevity?
>>
>> **Nothing of consequence. Both will require replacement of most (all)
>> electrolytica caps. Any OP amps used will be extremely primitive and
>> topology will not be anything great.
>>
>>>
>>> I must admit that I haven't listened extensively to either one of
>>> these receivers, and I certainly haven't made a "head-to-head"
>>> comparison, but I will say that they both look and sound fantastic.
>>>
>>> Which one would you keep and why?
>>
>> **Neither.
>>
>> Trevor Wilson
>>
>
> We've had this discussion before - but there is no reason that most
> vintage solid-state equipment cannot run and sound fine almost
> indefinitely,

**Nonsense. Electros wear out. Switches and pots, ditto.

> provided mechanical controls and switches etc are clean and functioning
> properly, and there could be maintenance issues such as needing to
> resolder regulators (these Pioneer models were famous for this). The tuner
> sections were better than most modern models,

**Nonsense. I recently acquired a 5 year old Denon tuner. The sound quality
is nothing short of astonishing. FAR better than my beloved Yamaha T7. It is
even better than the highly regarded Yamaha T2. Even better, the tuner does
not drift. Old Pioneers will often do so.


and the audio performance is generally
> fine.

**ASUMING the switches, pots and electros have been replaced - yes. Also,
assuming you are only using 8 Ohm speakers. Those old Pioneers were hopeless
at driving anything other than a resistive 8 Ohm load.


They wouldn't beat a top-of-the-line modern separate power amp, but
> that's an apples vs. oranges comparison.

**Agreed.

>
> In the specific case of the SX-750 or SX-780, there is little to choose
> between them. The 780 was simply the next model year that's all. They both
> use STK0050 output devices, and personally I favor discrete output
> transistors. The 0050's were so common however, one should still be able
> to get one should you need it.

**Yep. They're both over-rated and over-priced. Sell them and buy something
decent.

Trevor Wilson

Re: PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?


Thanks for taking the time to reply, but I have to say that you seem
to be too biased against "old stuff" to really be able to give me a
thoughtful answer. I'm not trying to insult you, but it does seem to
me that you are one of those who thinks that "old = bad" and "new =
good".

You said it yourself - people are paying big bucks for vintage gear
like this. You have to ask yourself: WHY are they doing it? If there
is one area where people are very picky about getting what they paid
for, it is in the area of home audio. If there wasn't such a demand
for certain pieces of vintage gear, the prices wouldn't be as high as
they are. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR more often than not!

I suggest you try to see past your obvious bias against "old stuff"
and listen--REALLY listen--to a wide variety of "old" gear. You might
be very surprised at what you hear.

NEWER IS NOT ALWAYS BETTER. For proof of that, just listen to an
iPod. UGH.

Re: PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?


"EADGBE" <hwbosshoss@comcast . net > wrote in message
news:618995cb-7dbb-4a94-806c-a2c24de7541e@34g2000hsf.googlegroups . com ...
>
> Thanks for taking the time to reply, but I have to say that you seem
> to be too biased against "old stuff" to really be able to give me a
> thoughtful answer.

**Incorrect. I am merely providing a thoughtful, concise answer. I am
intimately familiar with old equipment.

I'm not trying to insult you, but it does seem to
> me that you are one of those who thinks that "old = bad" and "new =
> good".

**Nonsense. I am one of those who thinks that old, crappy = bad. Old, good =
good.. New, crappy = bad. New, good = good.

>
> You said it yourself - people are paying big bucks for vintage gear
> like this. You have to ask yourself: WHY are they doing it?

**They're deluded.

If there
> is one area where people are very picky about getting what they paid
> for, it is in the area of home audio. If there wasn't such a demand
> for certain pieces of vintage gear, the prices wouldn't be as high as
> they are. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR more often than not!

**Nope. More often that not, you get crap, at high prices.


>
> I suggest you try to see past your obvious bias against "old stuff"
> and listen--REALLY listen--to a wide variety of "old" gear. You might
> be very surprised at what you hear.

**In my business, I get to listen to old equipment very regularly. Make no
mistake: A great deal of new equipment is crap. No doubt about it. However,
there are a raft of old models which were and still are crap.

>
> NEWER IS NOT ALWAYS BETTER. For proof of that, just listen to an
> iPod. UGH.

**And old is not always better.

Trevor Wilson

Re: PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?

Trevor Wilson a écrit :
> "EADGBE" <hwbosshoss@comcast . net > wrote in message
> news:618995cb-7dbb-4a94-806c-a2c24de7541e@34g2000hsf.googlegroups . com ...
>> Thanks for taking the time to reply, but I have to say that you seem
>> to be too biased against "old stuff" to really be able to give me a
>> thoughtful answer.
>
> **Incorrect. I am merely providing a thoughtful, concise answer. I am
> intimately familiar with old equipment.
>
> I'm not trying to insult you, but it does seem to
>> me that you are one of those who thinks that "old = bad" and "new =
>> good".
>
> **Nonsense. I am one of those who thinks that old, crappy = bad. Old, good =
> good.. New, crappy = bad. New, good = good.
>
>> You said it yourself - people are paying big bucks for vintage gear
>> like this. You have to ask yourself: WHY are they doing it?
>
> **They're deluded.

Totally Wrong! You can get awesome piece of vintage equipment for the
price you will pay for new crappy stuff.

> If there
>> is one area where people are very picky about getting what they paid
>> for, it is in the area of home audio. If there wasn't such a demand
>> for certain pieces of vintage gear, the prices wouldn't be as high as
>> they are. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR more often than not!
>
> **Nope. More often that not, you get crap, at high prices.

I see that you really but really don't know what you are talking about.
>
>
>> I suggest you try to see past your obvious bias against "old stuff"
>> and listen--REALLY listen--to a wide variety of "old" gear. You might
>> be very surprised at what you hear.

Totally Agree!

> **In my business, I get to listen to old equipment very regularly. Make no
> mistake: A great deal of new equipment is crap. No doubt about it. However,
> there are a raft of old models which were and still are crap.
>
>> NEWER IS NOT ALWAYS BETTER. For proof of that, just listen to an
>> iPod. UGH.
>
> **And old is not always better.
>
> Trevor Wilson
>
>

Re: PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?


"Major Jocelyn" <majorj@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:rpNUj.16181$HB2.8355@weber.videotron . net ...
> Trevor Wilson a écrit :
>> "EADGBE" <hwbosshoss@comcast . net > wrote in message
>> news:618995cb-7dbb-4a94-806c-a2c24de7541e@34g2000hsf.googlegroups . com ...
>>> Thanks for taking the time to reply, but I have to say that you seem
>>> to be too biased against "old stuff" to really be able to give me a
>>> thoughtful answer.
>>
>> **Incorrect. I am merely providing a thoughtful, concise answer. I am
>> intimately familiar with old equipment.
>>
>> I'm not trying to insult you, but it does seem to
>>> me that you are one of those who thinks that "old = bad" and "new =
>>> good".
>>
>> **Nonsense. I am one of those who thinks that old, crappy = bad. Old,
>> good = good.. New, crappy = bad. New, good = good.
>>
>>> You said it yourself - people are paying big bucks for vintage gear
>>> like this. You have to ask yourself: WHY are they doing it?
>>
>> **They're deluded.
>
> Totally Wrong! You can get awesome piece of vintage equipment for the
> price you will pay for new crappy stuff.

**Wrong. You MIGHT get a piece of adequately functioning equipment. Or not.
You might end up with a piece of junk wich requires vast sums to be spent,
in order to bring it up to a reasonable level of performance.

>
>> If there
>>> is one area where people are very picky about getting what they paid
>>> for, it is in the area of home audio. If there wasn't such a demand
>>> for certain pieces of vintage gear, the prices wouldn't be as high as
>>> they are. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR more often than not!
>>
>> **Nope. More often that not, you get crap, at high prices.
>
> I see that you really but really don't know what you are talking about.

**Really? Let me outline _my_ experience for you:

* 1974-1979 - Service manager for Marantz Australia.
* 1979 - Now - Service tech for my own business. I've serviced thousands of
different products, including many Pioneers. Unlike you, I KNOW exactly what
is wrong with 1970s vinage equipment.

The old Pioneers are better than some and worse than others, in both design
and construction. In all cases, they cannot come close to modern, PROPERLY
designed equipment, in performance on a Dollar for Dollar basis. Second hand
prices are, of course, difficult to assess. I can tell you, however, that
1970s equipment tends to be over-priced.

Now: Tell me about YOUR experience. How many old Pioneers have you serviced?


Trevor Wilson

Re: PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?

Trevor Wilson a écrit :
> "Major Jocelyn" <majorj@videotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:rpNUj.16181$HB2.8355@weber.videotron . net ...
>> Trevor Wilson a écrit :
>>> "EADGBE" <hwbosshoss@comcast . net > wrote in message
>>> news:618995cb-7dbb-4a94-806c-a2c24de7541e@34g2000hsf.googlegroups . com ...
>>>> Thanks for taking the time to reply, but I have to say that you seem
>>>> to be too biased against "old stuff" to really be able to give me a
>>>> thoughtful answer.
>>> **Incorrect. I am merely providing a thoughtful, concise answer. I am
>>> intimately familiar with old equipment.
>>>
>>> I'm not trying to insult you, but it does seem to
>>>> me that you are one of those who thinks that "old = bad" and "new =
>>>> good".
>>> **Nonsense. I am one of those who thinks that old, crappy = bad. Old,
>>> good = good.. New, crappy = bad. New, good = good.
>>>
>>>> You said it yourself - people are paying big bucks for vintage gear
>>>> like this. You have to ask yourself: WHY are they doing it?
>>> **They're deluded.
>> Totally Wrong! You can get awesome piece of vintage equipment for the
>> price you will pay for new crappy stuff.
>
> **Wrong. You MIGHT get a piece of adequately functioning equipment. Or not.
> You might end up with a piece of junk wich requires vast sums to be spent,
> in order to bring it up to a reasonable level of performance.
>
>>> If there
>>>> is one area where people are very picky about getting what they paid
>>>> for, it is in the area of home audio. If there wasn't such a demand
>>>> for certain pieces of vintage gear, the prices wouldn't be as high as
>>>> they are. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR more often than not!
>>> **Nope. More often that not, you get crap, at high prices.
>> I see that you really but really don't know what you are talking about.
>
> **Really? Let me outline my experience for you:
>
> * 1974-1979 - Service manager for Marantz Australia.
> * 1979 - Now - Service tech for my own business. I've serviced thousands of
> different products, including many Pioneers. Unlike you, I KNOW exactly what
> is wrong with 1970s vinage equipment.
>
> The old Pioneers are better than some and worse than others, in both design
> and construction. In all cases, they cannot come close to modern, PROPERLY
> designed equipment, in performance on a Dollar for Dollar basis. Second hand
> prices are, of course, difficult to assess. I can tell you, however, that
> 1970s equipment tends to be over-priced.
>
> Now: Tell me about YOUR experience. How many old Pioneers have you serviced?
>
>
> Trevor Wilson
>
>
I have own several Pioneer receivers and amp (starting with the
SX-626,going to the SX-939 then the SA-9900) followed by Kenwood KA-9100
then Sansui CA-3000 Preamp with Dynaco ST-400 power Amp followed by
Radford SC-242 Preamp and Quad 405 Power Amp and Finally since 1990 the
Luxman L-550. All these component are still working perfectly. I gave
the CA-3000/Dynaco ST-400 to a kid (22 years old is a kid for me) a
couple weeks ago. I admit that I had to replace some capacitor on the
Quad and the Dynaco + cleaning of the other one but as I said they all
work perfectly. As for my Experience, I work as a senior salesmen in a
Hi-Fi chain so I know by the quatity of receivers that stop working
after being in use for less than 2 years that today's stuff do not have
the quality of construction and design that the vintage stuff do.
And unlike you I do not make a living servicing NEw equipment.

Re: PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?


"Major Jocelyn" <majorj@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:BHWUj.4139$zm2.12557@wagner.videotron . net ...
> Trevor Wilson a écrit :
>> "Major Jocelyn" <majorj@videotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:rpNUj.16181$HB2.8355@weber.videotron . net ...
>>> Trevor Wilson a écrit :
>>>> "EADGBE" <hwbosshoss@comcast . net > wrote in message
>>>> news:618995cb-7dbb-4a94-806c-a2c24de7541e@34g2000hsf.googlegroups . com ...
>>>>> Thanks for taking the time to reply, but I have to say that you seem
>>>>> to be too biased against "old stuff" to really be able to give me a
>>>>> thoughtful answer.
>>>> **Incorrect. I am merely providing a thoughtful, concise answer. I am
>>>> intimately familiar with old equipment.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not trying to insult you, but it does seem to
>>>>> me that you are one of those who thinks that "old = bad" and "new =
>>>>> good".
>>>> **Nonsense. I am one of those who thinks that old, crappy = bad. Old,
>>>> good = good.. New, crappy = bad. New, good = good.
>>>>
>>>>> You said it yourself - people are paying big bucks for vintage gear
>>>>> like this. You have to ask yourself: WHY are they doing it?
>>>> **They're deluded.
>>> Totally Wrong! You can get awesome piece of vintage equipment for the
>>> price you will pay for new crappy stuff.
>>
>> **Wrong. You MIGHT get a piece of adequately functioning equipment. Or
>> not. You might end up with a piece of junk wich requires vast sums to be
>> spent, in order to bring it up to a reasonable level of performance.
>>
>>>> If there
>>>>> is one area where people are very picky about getting what they paid
>>>>> for, it is in the area of home audio. If there wasn't such a demand
>>>>> for certain pieces of vintage gear, the prices wouldn't be as high as
>>>>> they are. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR more often than not!
>>>> **Nope. More often that not, you get crap, at high prices.
>>> I see that you really but really don't know what you are talking about.
>>
>> **Really? Let me outline _my_ experience for you:
>>
>> * 1974-1979 - Service manager for Marantz Australia.
>> * 1979 - Now - Service tech for my own business. I've serviced thousands
>> of different products, including many Pioneers. Unlike you, I KNOW
>> exactly what is wrong with 1970s vinage equipment.
>>
>> The old Pioneers are better than some and worse than others, in both
>> design and construction. In all cases, they cannot come close to modern,
>> PROPERLY designed equipment, in performance on a Dollar for Dollar basis.
>> Second hand prices are, of course, difficult to assess. I can tell you,
>> however, that 1970s equipment tends to be over-priced.
>>
>> Now: Tell me about YOUR experience. How many old Pioneers have you
>> serviced?
>>
>>
>> Trevor Wilson
> I have own several Pioneer receivers and amp (starting with the
> SX-626,going to the SX-939 then the SA-9900) followed by Kenwood KA-9100
> then Sansui CA-3000 Preamp with Dynaco ST-400 power Amp followed by
> Radford SC-242 Preamp and Quad 405 Power Amp and Finally since 1990 the
> Luxman L-550. All these component are still working perfectly.

**You don't know that. You're guessing. I promise you this: After 30 years,
no amplifier will meet it's published specs, unless you've replaced every
electrolytic cap in the product. Of the specific products you mentioned, I
have a great deal of experience with the Luxman, the Quad, the Dynaco and
the Pioneers. ALL suffer from dried out electros. Amongst other things.

I gave
> the CA-3000/Dynaco ST-400 to a kid (22 years old is a kid for me) a couple
> weeks ago. I admit that I had to replace some capacitor on the Quad and
> the Dynaco + cleaning of the other one but as I said they all work
> perfectly. As for my Experience, I work as a senior salesmen in a Hi-Fi
> chain so I know by the quatity of receivers that stop working after being
> in use for less than 2 years that today's stuff do not have the quality of
> construction and design that the vintage stuff do.

**Utter nonsense. You can buy decent quality modern equipment, as well as
crap.

> And unlike you I do not make a living servicing NEw equipment.

**I make a living servicing new and old equipment. The old stuff is nothing
special. A lot of the new stuff is nothing special.

Trevor Wilson

Re: PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio . com .au> writes:
> [...]
> **I make a living servicing new and old equipment. The old stuff is nothing
> special. A lot of the new stuff is nothing special.

Hi Trevor,

I get excited when someone like you comes available to educate me. I
hope you won't mind sharing your knowledge and experience.

Whether old or new, please tell me which amps would be your picks in the
~50 to ~200 watt range, whether old or new. The amplifier itself, and to
a lesser extent, the premp, are what's important to me (rather than
tuner performance, video switching, etc.).

Also, what class A amp (new or old) would you recommend?
--
% Randy Yates % "Though you ride on the wheels of tomorrow,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % you still wander the fields of your
%%% 919-577-9882 % sorrow."
%%%% <yates@ieee.org> % '21st Century Man', *Time*, ELO
* w w w .digitalsignallabs . com

Re: PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?

Trevor, no recommendations?

--Randy

Randy Yates <yates@ieee.org> writes:

> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio . com .au> writes:
>> [...]
>> **I make a living servicing new and old equipment. The old stuff is nothing
>> special. A lot of the new stuff is nothing special.
>
> Hi Trevor,
>
> I get excited when someone like you comes available to educate me. I
> hope you won't mind sharing your knowledge and experience.
>
> Whether old or new, please tell me which amps would be your picks in the
> ~50 to ~200 watt range, whether old or new. The amplifier itself, and to
> a lesser extent, the premp, are what's important to me (rather than
> tuner performance, video switching, etc.).
>
> Also, what class A amp (new or old) would you recommend?
> --
> % Randy Yates % "Though you ride on the wheels of tomorrow,
> %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % you still wander the fields of your
> %%% 919-577-9882 % sorrow."
> %%%% <yates@ieee.org> % '21st Century Man', *Time*, ELO
> * w w w .digitalsignallabs . com

--
% Randy Yates % "Though you ride on the wheels of tomorrow,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % you still wander the fields of your
%%% 919-577-9882 % sorrow."
%%%% <yates@ieee.org> % '21st Century Man', *Time*, ELO
* w w w .digitalsignallabs . com

Re: PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?

Trevor Wilson a écrit :
> "Major Jocelyn" <majorj@videotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:BHWUj.4139$zm2.12557@wagner.videotron . net ...
>> Trevor Wilson a écrit :
>>> "Major Jocelyn" <majorj@videotron.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:rpNUj.16181$HB2.8355@weber.videotron . net ...
>>>> Trevor Wilson a écrit :
>>>>> "EADGBE" <hwbosshoss@comcast . net > wrote in message
>>>>> news:618995cb-7dbb-4a94-806c-a2c24de7541e@34g2000hsf.googlegroups . com ...
>>>>>> Thanks for taking the time to reply, but I have to say that you seem
>>>>>> to be too biased against "old stuff" to really be able to give me a
>>>>>> thoughtful answer.
>>>>> **Incorrect. I am merely providing a thoughtful, concise answer. I am
>>>>> intimately familiar with old equipment.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not trying to insult you, but it does seem to
>>>>>> me that you are one of those who thinks that "old = bad" and "new =
>>>>>> good".
>>>>> **Nonsense. I am one of those who thinks that old, crappy = bad. Old,
>>>>> good = good.. New, crappy = bad. New, good = good.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You said it yourself - people are paying big bucks for vintage gear
>>>>>> like this. You have to ask yourself: WHY are they doing it?
>>>>> **They're deluded.
>>>> Totally Wrong! You can get awesome piece of vintage equipment for the
>>>> price you will pay for new crappy stuff.
>>> **Wrong. You MIGHT get a piece of adequately functioning equipment. Or
>>> not. You might end up with a piece of junk wich requires vast sums to be
>>> spent, in order to bring it up to a reasonable level of performance.
>>>
>>>>> If there
>>>>>> is one area where people are very picky about getting what they paid
>>>>>> for, it is in the area of home audio. If there wasn't such a demand
>>>>>> for certain pieces of vintage gear, the prices wouldn't be as high as
>>>>>> they are. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR more often than not!
>>>>> **Nope. More often that not, you get crap, at high prices.
>>>> I see that you really but really don't know what you are talking about.
>>> **Really? Let me outline my experience for you:
>>>
>>> * 1974-1979 - Service manager for Marantz Australia.
>>> * 1979 - Now - Service tech for my own business. I've serviced thousands
>>> of different products, including many Pioneers. Unlike you, I KNOW
>>> exactly what is wrong with 1970s vinage equipment.
>>>
>>> The old Pioneers are better than some and worse than others, in both
>>> design and construction. In all cases, they cannot come close to modern,
>>> PROPERLY designed equipment, in performance on a Dollar for Dollar basis.
>>> Second hand prices are, of course, difficult to assess. I can tell you,
>>> however, that 1970s equipment tends to be over-priced.
>>>
>>> Now: Tell me about YOUR experience. How many old Pioneers have you
>>> serviced?
>>>
>>>
>>> Trevor Wilson
>> I have own several Pioneer receivers and amp (starting with the
>> SX-626,going to the SX-939 then the SA-9900) followed by Kenwood KA-9100
>> then Sansui CA-3000 Preamp with Dynaco ST-400 power Amp followed by
>> Radford SC-242 Preamp and Quad 405 Power Amp and Finally since 1990 the
>> Luxman L-550. All these component are still working perfectly.
>
> **You don't know that. You're guessing. I promise you this: After 30 years,
> no amplifier will meet it's published specs, unless you've replaced every
> electrolytic cap in the product. Of the specific products you mentioned, I
> have a great deal of experience with the Luxman, the Quad, the Dynaco and
> the Pioneers. ALL suffer from dried out electros. Amongst other things.
>
> I gave
>> the CA-3000/Dynaco ST-400 to a kid (22 years old is a kid for me) a couple
>> weeks ago. I admit that I had to replace some capacitor on the Quad and
>> the Dynaco + cleaning of the other one but as I said they all work
>> perfectly. As for my Experience, I work as a senior salesmen in a Hi-Fi
>> chain so I know by the quatity of receivers that stop working after being
>> in use for less than 2 years that today's stuff do not have the quality of
>> construction and design that the vintage stuff do.
>
> **Utter nonsense. You can buy decent quality modern equipment, as well as
> crap.
>
>> And unlike you I do not make a living servicing NEw equipment.
>
> **I make a living servicing new and old equipment. The old stuff is nothing
> special. A lot of the new stuff is nothing special.
>
> Trevor Wilson
>
>
If a good vintage amp of receiver have been well taken care it can (and
probably will give you years of pleasure. On the other hand if it was
not then it will have to be serviced and sometime it is not worth the
money (and the time involved). I have seen people that have bought H/K,
Rotel and Nad that where totally scrapped by the previous owner. I have
also see Luxman, Quad, Radford, and H/K stuff that where in pristine
condition. As for my Radford I have it check by one guy at our service
dept that is a Radford Nuts and all the spec where still on the spot.

One thing that I did'nt care before that we see on new stuff is a Remote
control. I did'nt care before but when I broke my ankle this winter you
bet I was craving for one (and I still do today after 3 month);-).

As for the Quality of today receivers, yes you can get decent and even
great quality modern equipment but not below 400$. I never get any
return on High-End Receivers It is always with the one that cost less
than 400$. This is not Utter nonsense as you said. Do you remember that
some people recommend this poster to buy a 200$ basic receiver. What I
wanted to said is that you're better to spend that 200$ on a good
vintage amp or receiver than on a 200$ crappy basic receiver.

Jocelyn
Proud Son of Leo Major, DCM & Bar
To know why I am proud go there: * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo Major

Re: PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?

On May 9, 10:35 am, Major Jocelyn <maj...@videotron.ca> wrote:
> Trevor Wilson a écrit :
>
>
>
> > "Major Jocelyn" <maj...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
> >news:BHWUj.4139$zm2.12557@wagner.videotron . net ...
> >> Trevor Wilson a écrit :
> >>> "Major Jocelyn" <maj...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
> >>>news:rpNUj.16181$HB2.8355@weber.videotron . net ...
> >>>> Trevor Wilson a écrit :
> >>>>> "EADGBE" <hwbossh...@comcast . net > wrote in message
> >>>>>news:618995cb-7dbb-4a94-806c-a2c24de7541e@34g2000hsf.googlegroups . com =
...
> >>>>>> Thanks for taking the time to reply, but I have to say that you see=
m
> >>>>>> to be too biased against "old stuff" to really be able to give me a=

> >>>>>> thoughtful answer.
> >>>>> **Incorrect. I am merely providing a thoughtful, concise answer. I a=
m
> >>>>> intimately familiar with old equipment.
>
> >>>>>  I'm not trying to insult you, but it does seem to
> >>>>>> me that you are one of those who thinks that "old = bad" and "new=
=
> >>>>>> good".
> >>>>> **Nonsense. I am one of those who thinks that old, crappy = bad. O=
ld,
> >>>>> good = good.. New, crappy = bad. New, good = good.
>
> >>>>>> You said it yourself - people are paying big bucks for vintage gear=

> >>>>>> like this.  You have to ask yourself: WHY are they doing it?
> >>>>> **They're deluded.
> >>>> Totally Wrong! You can get awesome piece of vintage equipment for the=

> >>>> price you will pay for new crappy stuff.
> >>> **Wrong. You MIGHT get a piece of adequately functioning equipment. Or=

> >>> not. You might end up with a piece of junk wich requires vast sums to =
be
> >>> spent, in order to bring it up to a reasonable level of performance.
>
> >>>>>   If there
> >>>>>> is one area where people are very picky about getting what they pai=
d
> >>>>>> for, it is in the area of home audio.  If there wasn't such a dem=
and
> >>>>>> for certain pieces of vintage gear, the prices wouldn't be as high =
as
> >>>>>> they are.  YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR more often than not!
> >>>>> **Nope. More often that not, you get crap, at high prices.
> >>>> I see that you really but really don't know what you are talking abou=
t.
> >>> **Really? Let me outline my experience for you:
>
> >>> * 1974-1979 - Service manager for Marantz Australia.
> >>> * 1979 - Now - Service tech for my own business. I've serviced thousan=
ds
> >>> of different products, including many Pioneers. Unlike you, I KNOW
> >>> exactly what is wrong with 1970s vinage equipment.
>
> >>> The old Pioneers are better than some and worse than others, in both
> >>> design and construction. In all cases, they cannot come close to moder=
n,
> >>> PROPERLY designed equipment, in performance on a Dollar for Dollar bas=
is.
> >>> Second hand prices are, of course, difficult to assess. I can tell you=
,
> >>> however, that 1970s equipment tends to be over-priced.
>
> >>> Now: Tell me about YOUR experience. How many old Pioneers have you
> >>> serviced?
>
> >>> Trevor Wilson
> >> I have own several Pioneer receivers and amp (starting with the
> >> SX-626,going to the SX-939 then the SA-9900) followed by Kenwood KA-910=
0
> >> then Sansui CA-3000 Preamp with Dynaco ST-400 power Amp followed by
> >> Radford SC-242 Preamp and Quad 405 Power Amp and Finally since 1990 the=

> >> Luxman L-550. All these component are still working perfectly.
>
> > **You don't know that. You're guessing. I promise you this: After 30 yea=
rs,
> > no amplifier will meet it's published specs, unless you've replaced ever=
y
> > electrolytic cap in the product. Of the specific products you mentioned,=
I
> > have a great deal of experience with the Luxman, the Quad, the Dynaco an=
d
> > the Pioneers. ALL suffer from dried out electros. Amongst other things.
>
> >  I gave
> >> the CA-3000/Dynaco ST-400 to a kid (22 years old is a kid for me) a cou=
ple
> >> weeks ago. I admit that I had to replace some capacitor on the Quad and=

> >> the Dynaco + cleaning of the other one but as I said they all work
> >> perfectly. As for my Experience, I work as a senior salesmen in a Hi-Fi=

> >> chain so I know by the quatity of receivers that stop working after bei=
ng
> >> in use for less than 2 years that today's stuff do not have the quality=
of
> >> construction and design that the vintage stuff do.
>
> > **Utter nonsense. You can buy decent quality modern equipment, as well a=
s
> > crap.
>
> >> And unlike you I do not make a living servicing NEw equipment.
>
> > **I make a living servicing new and old equipment. The old stuff is noth=
ing
> > special. A lot of the new stuff is nothing special.
>
> > Trevor Wilson
>
> If a good vintage amp of receiver have been well taken care it can (and
> probably will give you years of pleasure. On the other hand if it was
> not then it will have to be serviced and sometime it is not worth the
> money (and the time involved). I have seen people that have bought H/K,
> Rotel and Nad that where totally scrapped by the previous owner. I have
> also see Luxman, Quad, Radford, and H/K stuff that where in pristine
> condition. As for my Radford I have it check by one guy at our service
> dept that is a Radford Nuts and all the spec where still on the spot.
>
> One thing that I did'nt care before that we see on new stuff is a Remote
> control. I did'nt care before but when I broke my ankle this winter you
> bet I was craving for one (and I still do today after 3 month);-).
>
> As for the Quality of today receivers, yes you can get decent and even
> great quality modern equipment but not below 400$. I never get any
> return on High-End Receivers It is always with the one that cost less
> than 400$. This is not Utter nonsense as you said. Do you remember that
> some people recommend this poster to buy a 200$ basic receiver. What I
> wanted to said is that you're better to spend that 200$ on a good
> vintage amp or receiver than on a 200$ crappy basic receiver.
>
> Jocelyn
> Proud Son of Leo Major, DCM & Bar
> To know why I am proud go there: * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo Major- Hi=
de quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What I said was that those particular pioneers were not any better
than a new $200 stereo. Not that you could not get a better deal by
buying used equipment. Those particular pioneers can be had for under
$100. Could you get a better used amp for $200 than you could a new
one? Sure, as long as used is ok with you. That's not true for
everyone though.